Welcome to Scribd, the world's digital library. Read, publish, and share books and documents. See more
Download
Standard view
Full view
of .
Save to My Library
Look up keyword
Like this
4Activity
0 of .
Results for:
No results containing your search query
P. 1
NOLAN Labor Relations Complaint

NOLAN Labor Relations Complaint

Ratings: (0)|Views: 4,094|Likes:
Published by kevinhfd
labor relations complaint
labor relations complaint

More info:

Published by: kevinhfd on Jul 10, 2013
Copyright:Attribution Non-commercial

Availability:

Read on Scribd mobile: iPhone, iPad and Android.
download as PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd
See more
See less

07/13/2013

pdf

text

original

 
 
MUNICIPAL COMPLAINTSTATE OF CONNECTICUT
 
LABOR DEPARTMENT
 
CONNECTICUT STATE BOARD OF LABOR RELATIONS
 
IN THE MATTER OFHartford Fire Fighters Association, Local IAFF 760-AND-Daniel Nolan
RESPONDENT’S ADDRESS:
1 Linden Place, Apt. 104, Hartford, CT 06103
RESPONDENT’S PHONE:
860-296-3523
COMPLAINTPURSUANT TO SECTION 7-471(5) OF THE MUNICIPAL EMPLOYEE RELATIONSACT THE UNDERSIGNED ALLEGES THAT THE ABOVE-NAMED RESPONDENTHAS ENGAGED IN AND IS ENGAGING IN PROHIBITED PRACTICES WITHIN THEMEANING OF SECTION 7-470 OF SAID ACT, IN THAT:Breach of Duty of Fair Representation under C.G.S. §7-468(d)
1.
 
At all times mentioned herein, the claimant, Daniel Nolan was a Union member in goodstanding.2.
 
At all times mentioned herein, the respondent
, Hartford Firefighters’ Association(hereinafter, “Union”) was an employee organization within the meaning of C.G.S. §4
-467, with its principal place of business in Hartford, Connecticut.3.
 
The City of Hartford (hereinafter “City”) dismissed the claimant f 
rom his position as theDeputy Chief of Training for the City of Hartford Fire Department on or about February19, 2009.4.
 
The claimant, through the Union, filed a grievance and pursued the wrongful firingthrough arbitration.
 
5.
 
The claimant was subsequently ordered reinstated to his prior position in the City of Hartford Fire Department pursuant to a March 29, 2011 arbitration award that went intoeffect in January 2012.6.
 
The claimant’s active duty military service from September 9, 2011 until November 9,
2012, delayed his return to the City of Hartford Fire Department until November 25,2012.7.
 
The arbitration award directed that the claimant be reinstated to his former position, beawarded full back pay, seniority, and other benefits due to him from the time of termination until the time he resumed his duties.8.
 
Upon his return to work, the claimant was informed that he would not be returned to his position as the Deputy Chief of Training.9.
 
The claimant was also informed that he would no longer oversee the training of  personnel.10.
 
The claimant’s new position also stripped him of authority in making promotion
determinations.11.
 
The claimant informed the Union via email that he had not been reinstated to his prior  position as required by the arbitration award.12.
 
The Union, on or about November 27, 2012, indicated that it would not seek to enforcethat portion of the arbitration award that required the City to reinstate the claimant to his prior position.13.
 
The claimant subsequently requested explanation from the Union as to why it wasdeclining to pursue enforcement of his arbitration award.
 
14.
 
The Union responded on December 18, 2012, simply indicating that it declined to pursuethe matter further.15.
 
The claimant then urged the Union once again on or about January 7, 2013 to reconsider its inaction and to provide an explanation for its inaction.16.
 
The claimant received no response.17.
 
In January 2013, the claimant informed his chain of command and Union that he had not been awarded the compensation prescribed in the arbitration decision.18.
 
The Union was provided an update of this situation on March 7, 2013. To date, the Union
has failed to act to rectify the City’s noncompliance.
 19.
 
On March 28, 2013, the claimant informed the City that it had failed to providecompensation due for his a
ctive duty National Guard service, in violation of the City’s
ordinances.20.
 
Shortly thereafter, the claimant informed the Union about the City’s failure to
compensate him for his active duty service. The Union declined to act.21.
 
The City again failed to provide compensation due the claimant for his May 2013 National Guard active duty service.22.
 
On or about May 29, 2013, the Union was again informed of the failures by the City toact in accordance with its ordinances and the arbitration decision.23.
 
On June 21, 2013, the claimant informed the Union that the City had yet to respond to the
claimant’s request to be paid the appropriate back pay per the arbitrator’s award and to be
compensated for his work in the National Guard per City ordinance.24.
 
To date, the Union has failed to respond.

You're Reading a Free Preview

Download
/*********** DO NOT ALTER ANYTHING BELOW THIS LINE ! ************/ var s_code=s.t();if(s_code)document.write(s_code)//-->